Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @08:30AM
from the not-very-anonymous dept.

Gunkerty Jeb writes "Barrett Brown, the reporter who became a media-friendly spokesperson for the shadowy hacking group Anonymous, says that he is quitting the group in the wake of a public feud that has broken out between different hacker factions within the loosely organized collective."

Pardon me as I break my tin-foil hat out here. But there are a lot of government agencies and companies who have a vested interest in seeing Anon fall to pieces. The timing on this is almost as convenient as Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Julian Assange being arrested for sexual assault (the former right after he pulled decisively ahead of pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy in the polls and the later just weeks after he released a series of secret documents that embarrassed the U.S.). But then, I've always said [slashdot.org] that pedophilia and sexual assault charges are the quickest way to discredit someone publicly--way better than anything as crude as assassination.

Don't get me wrong, here. I'm not the kind of guy who thinks the moon landings were faked or that the U.S. planned 9-11 or any of that horseshit. But sometimes the timing on certain events just strikes me as a little too convenient for mere coincidence. And as was done with Wikileaks, the first step in a descrediting campaign is to encourage dissension from within and to get some internal plants/buy-offs to publicly bad-mouth the leadership (Daniel Domscheit-Berg [wired.com], I'm looking in your direction, little plant). Just don't be suprised to see some Anon leaders suddenly facing rape/pedophilia/sexual assault charges in the near future. You'll know for sure if beautiful women suddenly start throwing themselves at 4channers in public.

it's the boy who cried wolf syndrome: conspiracy theory is such a favorite currency of the low iq and not quite mentally sound crowd, that if an actual real conspiracy theory happens, no one will believe it

the effect of all the low iq and mentally deficient wack jobs constantly running around and crying wolf on conspiracies is to basically ensure that any rational and realistic consideration of an actual conspiracy theory is discounted up front

all those constantly babbling about conspiracy theories actually help conspiracy theories succeed, because they hide the tiny signals in a fountain of noise

i frequently laugh at and pour derision on conspiracy theory crack pots. however, i readily admit conspiracy theories are real. its just that they are exceedingly rare because they are so hard to pull off in airtight secrecy. but the dumber you are or the more mentally deranged you are, the more they seem likely, because your fear/ paranoia/ schizophrenia or dim perceptive abilities are unable to see just how incredibly hard an actual conspiracy theory is to actually pull off. how many ways it can fail, and continue to fail, long after the fact. how long has it been from the kennedy assassination. no one, NO ONE, the vast conspiracy has issued a peep about it, even accidentally? no one is still interested? come on! a lone asshole shot kennedy, not some mafia/ cia/ cuban/ whatever plot. occam's razor, my deluded friends, occam's razor

but conspiracy theories do have value in this world: entertainment. they are a frequent part of hollywood movies, because, like alien invasions or superheroes, they tickle our fancy. even though we know such things are impossible (well, those of us who are mentally sound realize superheros, aliens, and overarching vast conspiracies by secret black ops agencies are impossible)

please note conspiracy theory proponents: all the noise you dingbats constantly make about conspiracy theories, help to hide the actual real rare ones. not that that fact is going to change your behavior. because you're stupid and/ or deranged. but carry on, i need to laugh. yes, i know: the chemtrails from the government airplanes and the fluoridated water has completely turned me into a sheep. (giggle)

So what you are saying is that the 9/11 truth movement and moon landing hoax conspiracies were really started by the government so they could get away with real conspiracies without anybody noticing?;)

So what you are saying is that the 9/11 truth movement and moon landing hoax conspiracies were really started by the government so they could get away with real conspiracies without anybody noticing?;)

Well, mkultra (cia hiring prostitutes to slip their clients LSD while they were watched by agents through one-way-mirrors) might be easiest to explain that way.

As well as those alien-autopsy conspiracies of odd-shaped bodies that happened around the time of human radiation experiments.

All you need to maintain a proper conspiracy is that the number of those in it is small, that most participants know who the other participants are (and thus can enact reprisals for blowing the whistle) and that it's in the best interest of all participants to keep quiet about it (maybe because of the intensity of possible reprisals).

This is why government conspiracies are such a popular theory (and probably also popular in practice), since governments do have the strongest power to silence and punish whist

people change over time. the ruthless become guiltridden. the desperate become mindful of making amends. decades pass. conspiracies are never airtight

there was a fountain of conspiracy theories one hundred years ago. there will be a fountain of conspiracy theories one hundred years from now. 99.99999% of them aren't even remotely real, just products of the feverish imaginations of small or paranoid schizophrenic minds

The problem with that is...well, as they say: if two people know about it, it's no longer a secret. I mean, just look at the leaks about the bin Laden operation. The original hope was that zero details would leak out. Now we know the dog's name!

how long has it been from the kennedy assassination. no one, NO ONE, the vast conspiracy has issued a peep about it, even accidentally?

Actually, E. Howard Hunt, one of the engineers of the Watergate break-in, audio recorded a confession on his death bed to his son. He also implicated Cord Meyer, Frank Sturgis, David SÃnchez Morales, William King Harvey, a French gunman who worked for the Mafia, and Lyndon B. Johnson. He could have made it up, I suppose, but he's hardly some crackpot. He's someone who would have been in a position to carry it out. And since it was a deathbed confession, there was no glory to be hounded.

But you're right. Nobody cares or this would have been a much bigger story. People have been conditioned to blindly reject anything that might even hint of a conspiracy theory.

People have been conditioned to blindly reject anything that might even hint of a conspiracy theory.

I think that's called "healthy skepticism," "logic," and "reason." Requiring sufficient facts in order to believe an argument is not a weakness. Look at the fiction section of a library; any fool can fabricate a story that's reasonably convincing. SlashDot posters routinely denigrate religions on precisely this issue. Coming up with a theory of events doesn't mean squat. You have to get proof, not simply ask questions that raise suspicions. "This is suspicious" only means you need to investigate more

I don't consider it healthy, logical or reasonable to blindly believe anything. In this sense, it's not the conspiracy theorists who are saying "I know." They are saying, "I think," based on a limited set of facts. Limitations that even scientists have to deal with. The only people saying "I know" are the ones blindly rejecting theories because they are afraid how people might reject them if they do. They don't even take the time to disprove anything, because they think they just already know and that every

I have been close enough on the outside of a real conspiracy that went down to say.... I too believe in their existence if not most conspiracies.

I think most conspiracy theories miss the fact that.... people, even conspirators, are seldom evil for the sake of evil. Normally their "conspiracies" are quite mundane... and generally more about being self serving than about actual power struggles or plans, and more about, making money for someone.

The attack on Sony is just the latest example. Anon was at it's best a gang of relatively harmless jerks. Now they are just dangerous jerks with delusions that they have a right to be judge, jury, and executioner.

Wow good links. I had forgotten how funny they can be, as well as trying to stand up for civil rights. The attack on Sony was a simple DoS on their web site trying to highlight the suppression of OtherOS. Hardly a big deal to a company the size of Sony. The Chanology and HBGary were great reads.

I thought they were just a bunch of jerks, but thanks for educating me. I can see their attraction, they do seem a pretty cool bunch.

Really, which is more likely? 1) there's a giant world-government conspiracy to discredit Anonymous (which, in the grand scheme of things, is pretty small potatoes)? or 2) a group of semi-antisocial types turned their anti-sociability on each other?

The above sounds very plausible, and I agree with the OP that it could well be true. Honestly, there's no dirty cheap-ass trick I wouldn't put past today's US administration. Their assaults on freedom, the internet, other countries' democratic processes, and their own citizens prove how wicked and wretched they've become. They are so far from their founding ideals of freedom and democracy they can't even see those founding ideals any more. Give it another 100 years of apathy, another 50 of irritation and cu

Barret Brown if he was every really in this group will find out soon that quitting isn't as easy as making a public declaration.That is perhaps the main reason not to join this sort of group, when you join they own you and you cannot quit.

As far as Barret Brown being the public face, that was a stupid idea in the first place which smelled like a setup. The guy also released a crappy manual on opsec on pastebin. Couldn't he have made a PDF? A website? It didn't have much substance either.

Barret Brown if he was every really in this group will find out soon that quitting isn't as easy as making a public declaration.That is perhaps the main reason not to join this sort of group, when you join they own you and you cannot quit.

What? They're like a street gang now?

If Mr. Brown has quit the group it's possible he quit because he's been turned informant for the FBI. It's also possible he quit because he's been discovered.

Some of the members may be members of street gangs and there could be a street gang, mafia, or gangster element to it. It's a criminal organization which relies on extortion so you can expect that if extortion goes on, it would be hard to break free from this sort of organization. Anonymous may have a lot of dirt on Mr. Brown or on any member who gets close to the organization. This could be any embarrassing information, such as that some members are potential pedophiles, or maybe other members have given t

The timing on this is almost as convenient as Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Julian Assange being arrested for sexual assault (the former right after he pulled decisively ahead of pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy in the polls...

When did Strauss-Kahn arrive in New York and how many people would know where he would be staying?

To make this work, you would need to know quite a lot about the organization, staffing and routine of the hotel.

The plan demands the successful bribery or coercion of a credible victim - in this case a veteran chamber maid with a nine year old daughter.

You have one chance to get this right or the next time you meet she will be wearing a wire.

Actually, all it takes is a big bribe (perhaps coupled with a threat) and charges that only need to hold up well enough to last through the election. The end goal isn't a conviction, it's discrediting. He-said/she-said is more than enough for that.

He flies with the same airline company every time and you can bet he has his preferred hotels. You don't need to do that much planning, find one maid who is in financial troubles and offer her a $5k bribe, at some point she will have an excuse to go into his room - she doesn't even need to go on a witness stand, the damage is done, even if the charges are withdrawn the man has no political future.

There is no need for any conspiracy to make Anon fall apart. This will happen automagically. Loosely organized, ideologicaly motivated, idealistic organisations have appeared and disappeared by thousands during the last century alone.

There are reasons why most organisations don't work like Anon and that's because this model will not work over a prolonged time. Organisations like Greenpeace are slightly more democratic than North-Korea because they wouldn't be as effective and stable otherwise.

While I see where you're going, we *are* talking about a group where each individual member can do pretty much whatever he wants and claim to be doing it on behalf of Anonymous. From that perspective,it's not so hard to believe that - as this group begins high profile activity - that there's a lot of internal dissent and disagreement; and I don't doubt that many yearn for the "good old days" when all of the members were of a [generally] like mind.

No tinfoil hat. In the words of Boots Riley from The Coup, "They're tryin' to kill the movement with the new CoIntelPro [wikipedia.org]." You think that went away when congress shut it down? Yeah, right.

The problem is with how brainwashed the US population are. Including many here at Slashdot.You could tell them straight to their faces, that now they are being raped, insert your cock all the way, fuck around until it rips apart and they bleed, and they'd still form those fake-two-sides of the story:A. "Those fuckin' fearmongers and lie-spreading anti-Americans who try to denounce our heroes!"B. "Pardon me as I break my

Just don't be suprised to see some Anon leaders suddenly facing rape/pedophilia/sexual assault charges in the near future.

The fact that most Anon members originated from 4chan and other mentionable image boards tells me that a good majority are *actually* guilty of pedophilia (in the sense that they own pornographic pictures of prepubescent children).

Honestly, this guy, and really, NOBODY has any buisness attempting to be a PUBLIC figure for Anonymous. It's in the NAME! Allot of the disention likely stems from him wanting to be a vapid attention seeking whore. It's best he steps down, and no one else attempt to be some figurehead. Anonymous is best off sticking to the whims of the masses. This is more like Anon getting back to buisness of doing things for the "lulz". And no, I do not identify with them, or say I am not with them. This is the nature of w

Al-Qaeda as hydra only works if it is in fact decentralized - particularly in terms of skill set/funding. If OBL kept his funds under his own control, that alone would be a significant impact in funding operations. I agree with you if he was in fact a figurehead by the end.

OBL had no skill set. His only value was his assets which were largely frozen within a month of the Sept 11th attacks. This the reason Bush's butt wasn't on fire about capturing OBL when asked about it in 2002... OBL, without his assets, was nothing more than a token member of Al Qaeda. Too bad most people don't see him for what he was.And this isn't to take away from the recent killing of OBL. He still needed to go but he wasn't a significant threat once the groundwar started in Afganistan. If anyt

Breaking newsA member of the hacktivist group Anonymous has just announced that their organizational hierarchy is identical to that of al-Qaeda's, thus proving the suspicion that both terrorist groups are related and have been working together. The leaders of the two group could not be reached for comments.

Having them break up into smaller pieces is a good thing. Because you now have a bunch of small groups with limited resources, and more diverse motive. So there will be more smaller attacks which may more easily be thwarted. Vs. a large organization who can do more tactile large scale attacks.These people are criminals. The fact that they are using computers to do their crimes doesn't excuse them. It is the same as breaking into a building. They are using "Oh we are protesting" nonsense to try to just

Well here's the thing, they always were a bunch of small groups. In fact, they are a bunch of individuals that only rarely work together, and only when they feel like it. Each attack that they supposedly launch is only joined by a tiny subset of them, because most of them are just there to share porn. They attack each other and try to trick (i.e. make money off of) each other far more often than they flip on their LOICs and point them at a designated target.

The French Socialist Party gets its best shot in 22 years [economist.com] of winning the Presidency and overthrowing a strongly pro-American regime. But a year before the election, their leading candidate, a guy with no criminal record in his 62 years who is leading by double digits in all the polls, suddenly decides to rape a maid in New York. That's quite a convenient coincidence for the United States and their friend Nicolas Sarkozy, no? That's right up their in convenience with Julian Assange deciding to become a serial rapist just a few weeks after leaking troves of secret U.S. State Department and Pentagon documents.

Isn't it nice when all your enemies decide to become rapists after they cross you?

Overthrowing a strongly pro-American regime? Wow, you really don't know Sarkozy or the French very much. He's strongly pro-American only in the context of French foreign politics since de Gaulle, who was almost obsessed with throwing a wrench into American plans in Europe. Sarkozy likes America, but he also likes rich friends who host him during his vacations. The two go hand in hand for him.

As for DSK, he's apparently had a history of treating women in a less than gentlemanly fashion. The reason that DSK is the Socialists' best hope is because the others are intellectual lightweights (Segolene Royal, ugh) with no achievements to show for from a political perspective.

The tragedy is that the French Socialist Party was willing to put up with someone who's a rapist - with one Socialist leader telling her own daughter not to report a sexual assault by home - in order to have a stronger candidate against Sarkozy. If this came from nowhere, you'd have a point, but the warning signs about this guy were all over the place.

You know, I bet if Martin Luther King had went on a talk show back in the 60's and alleged that the FBI was spying on him, attempting to infiltrate and discredit the SCLC, and sending letters to his wife alleging affairs--everyone else on that talk show would have laughed and called him a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

I'm so sick of Anonymous taking itself so seriously. It used to be about raiding barbie message boards, annoying habbo hotel players, and prank calling Tom Green. Even the recent project forever alone, getting guys on okcupid to unsuspectingly meet at a pay phone in times square is what Anonymous was always about. Not this stupid hacker / legion bullshit. It's stupid.

I'm not sure what a "newfag" is, but I agree, there's been a lot of people spouting stuff like "Anyone can be Anonymous", "how can anyone deny it was Anonymous, when Anonymous is my cat", etc. recently, clearly they don't know anything about Anonymous.

it's just some guy who started making reports in the name of anonymous, with his own name attached, making them non reports of dubious quality. maybe he got enough of publicity now to score a real reporter gig? or someone messed with him for making claims, which wouldn't be a surprise at all.

No, it's media hype. They want something to identify the group, attack, and discredit. Without some defining figure, it becomes pointless to try. Hence why they're trying to make this a big deal, because it allows for a 'target' of slander and disinformation.

It's not like this really hurts Anonymous. Even if they have hissy fits with themselves (not the first time it's happened after all) all it means is the group momentarily shrinks, remembers what it's actually there for, and then resumes it's activit

Prime example: The president of the US. Compare how often you hear about 'the Bush/Obama/Regan administration' versus the names of the people who actually did the work, like Jacob Lew, Arthur Laffer, John Roberts, etc. It's far more convenient to brand one person/few people as the label for a group, and then force them to 'take responsibility' for the organization, whether or not they even know of the events.

I thought that Anonymous didn't HAVE members, and that when 4chan was doing something popular (like LOIC) people were "part of" Anonymous and when 4chan was doing something unpopular (like getting raided because of LOIC) people were "not part of" Anonymous.

It seems to me like in this kind of post-group, Mr. Brown could come back when ever he wanted.

Welcome to the myth of Anonymous.Anonymous didn't take personal data from the Sony Network. Anonymous has no members so just because some people that say they are members of Anonymous did the attack you can not say Anonymous did it.Followed by.Anonymous fights for internet freedom!

... is that anybody can be a member. This isn't a borg collective with a unified vision.

As an outsider, the first sign that Anonymous has gone off the tracks is when they poked the WBC. While the WBC are a vile group of human beings, it seemed odd that Anonymous would even bother with them. After that, they started to attack the Koch Brothers. I can't remember a few of their other more recent operations, but the term "jumping the shark" comes to mind.

And it should be obvious to anyone why. Mr. Brown is focused on the sort of activities designed to elicit the maximum response by the most powerful military and government in the world. He is focusing on finding corruption in the US government, in the US military.

This is either a tactical error of epic proportions, or it's part of a deliberate design by his FBI handlers to turn him into the ultimate informant. I'm not accusing or saying with any degree of certainty that Mr. Brown is an informant. I'm saying

First of all, if there is such a thing as "Anonymous" then this guy left it the minute he identified himself.
Second, 10 minutes on 4chan should be enough to convince anyone that/b/tards can't organize their way out of a paper bag.
Third, ponies.

Those of us who have know of 4chan for 10+ years can't help but be a little perplexed at this transformation of Anonymous into "Hacking Heroes of the People". For as long as I remember, Anonymous, or as they used to call themselves, "/b/tards", were more known for pulling elaborate Internet trolls, vandalizing web pages, and basically creating chaos just "for the lulz". Far from being heroic, these people could be a nightmare. Get the wrong kind of attention from the Anonymous horde, and find your personal information posted all over the web.

Then they chose a few targets who everybody agreed deserved it: white supremacists, Scientology, arrogant corporations. Suddenly the media decides they're heroes and everyone just eats it up.

Sorry, I don't buy it. This is the same group that popularized the phrase "TITS OR GTFO", who created Pedobear. I don't buy that these people have suddenly grown Hearts of Pure Good. In their heart, they still get off on creating chaos for fun, and eventually they'll go back to it. Some 4channers will web-harass some teenage girl who made an ass of herself on the Internet (as already happened once), or do something else morally reprehensible, and will use the Anonymous banner because why not? Then the media's collective head will explode as they try to understand why their wonderful Internet Bandit Heroes have turned bad.

The mob claims not to exist. They claim to be legitimate businessmen. They claim to have no hierarchy, structure, or internal planning.

Those are all lies.

Anonymous is an on-line gang. It has leaders, structure, goals. It denies them all because if it didn't, it would be obvious it was a gang and it would be subject to increased scrutiny and prosecution under RICO statutes.

As the on-line world becomes darker and darker, people who use the Internet will flock to gangs, just as minority children do in inner cities. Gangs offer them protection and meaning in a chaotic, dangerous world. Gangs lure them in with women, drugs, and attention. Anonymous lures them in with pornography and jokes and gives them a place where they can be as racist and sexist as they want to be.

However, like everything else in the world, ultimately it comes down to money. Someone is funding Anonymous. Someone is protecting them from the government (really, if a Japanese gang attacked one of America's biggest corporations, do you think the US might press Japan to go after them?).

Who? Why, the US government, of course. Anonymous is a government-funded, government-protected para-cyber-military organization for engaging in false flag attacks against foreign corporations and foreign governments. Because of the outrageous behavior of Anonymous, the government has plausible deniability regarding their connection; in fact, the mere idea of the US utilizing anime and meme-obsessed "newfags" for false flag hacking operations against, say, Iran, sounds ludicrous. And indeed it should, because members who are attacking Iran are not posting memes and child pornography. They have very little to do with those members. Those members are the smokescreen. Their attacks against, for example, Second Life, were merely screening exercises afforded to a group of malcontent white metrosexual men to build an army of followers.

You might respond "What about Scientology?" Do you think the US government cares about Scientologists? That was a clear effort to define Anonymous as "outlaws."

And "What about Wikileaks?" Yes, what about Wikileaks? After all, do you think the US government is really scared of Wikileaks? Aside from Manning, who clearly violated his responsibilities in the military, has the US targeted any members of Wikileaks? The database Manning "compromised" was likely compromised dozens of times by foreign powers. No effort was made to keep it secure. And the data released by Manning? It merely supports the notion that the US did not attack civilians in Iraq. Almost all of the embarrassing information "leaked" by Wikileaks was detrimental to other powers, not the US. The US came off as, mostly, clean.

The US isn't afraid of Wikileaks. Why should it? Do you think Wikileaks has the power of the Soviet Union's intelligence agencies at the height of the Cold War? Chinese intelligence agencies? British? Japanese? German?

If the US is prepared to defend its intelligence against those powers, Wikileaks can pose no threat. Period. "But what about all the people in the US government calling for Assange's head?" Like, who? Palin? She's a private citizen. Huckabee? Another private citizen. There have been no attempts by the US to even charge Assange for conspiracy in the Manning leak. Zero. Why? Wikileaks is absolutely no threat.

And since Wikileaks is absolutely no threat to US businesses or government interests, it can be seen as an asset. Yet another para-cyber-military organization for the sole purpose of revealing "leaked" information regarding powers that we want denigrated.

Wikileaks + Anonymous = the perfect tool for going after weaker regimes and organizations with absolutely no egg on the face of the United States government.

No, this isn't a conspiracy theory. I don't claim the government started either organization, but only that they found them useful and likely have moles inside them helping steer them the way they want.

The moment that they started getting better organized is when they actually formed a small, internal group. I am sure that people will be pissed and tell me I am wrong, but think about it. They have spokespeople saying they did not do the PSN attack and they even posted something on their FaceBook page that was a video that stated it while they showed their logo. Think about that sentence for a little bit. Really, seriously think about it. The PSN attack is a perfect example of what Anon truly is, comp